From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@amd.com>
Cc: Nicolas Palix <npalix@diku.dk>, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:45:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BFFF31C.9090904@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100528071114.GA3266@amd.com>
On 05/28/2010 12:11 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:42:25AM -0400, Nicolas Palix wrote:
>>> We have submitted and received some feedback on an initial version of
>>> this, but I'm not completely sure of the current status.
>>
>> You can see the latest feedback we get at
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/10/257
>>
>> The initial submission and its comments are at
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/26/269
>
> I've also sent some feedback. Would be cool if you could work the
> feedback in and do a repost asking Andrew to take it. Would be cool to
> have this merged with 2.6.36.
>
I don't see why scripts that don't *in themselves* change the output
binaries need to wait for .36. Instead, it would be better to get them
in sooner to make them available to developers in advance of the .36 cycle.
Of course, I'm not Linus, and I don't see him Cc:'d on this, but that
would be the normal rules.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@amd.com>
Cc: Nicolas Palix <npalix@diku.dk>, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:45:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BFFF31C.9090904@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100528071114.GA3266@amd.com>
On 05/28/2010 12:11 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:42:25AM -0400, Nicolas Palix wrote:
>>> We have submitted and received some feedback on an initial version of
>>> this, but I'm not completely sure of the current status.
>>
>> You can see the latest feedback we get at
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/10/257
>>
>> The initial submission and its comments are at
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/26/269
>
> I've also sent some feedback. Would be cool if you could work the
> feedback in and do a repost asking Andrew to take it. Would be cool to
> have this merged with 2.6.36.
>
I don't see why scripts that don't *in themselves* change the output
binaries need to wait for .36. Instead, it would be better to get them
in sooner to make them available to developers in advance of the .36 cycle.
Of course, I'm not Linus, and I don't see him Cc:'d on this, but that
would be the normal rules.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-28 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-26 15:55 [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock Julia Lawall
2010-05-26 15:55 ` Julia Lawall
2010-05-27 11:06 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-27 11:06 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-27 11:11 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-27 11:11 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-27 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
2010-05-27 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
2010-05-27 11:42 ` Nicolas Palix
2010-05-27 11:42 ` Nicolas Palix
2010-05-28 7:11 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-28 7:11 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-05-28 16:45 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2010-05-28 16:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-01 9:58 ` Joerg Roedel
2010-06-01 9:58 ` Joerg Roedel
2010-06-01 21:15 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-01 21:15 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-01 21:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-06-01 21:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-06-02 5:29 ` Julia Lawall
2010-06-02 5:29 ` Julia Lawall
2010-06-02 8:38 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-06-02 8:38 ` Roedel, Joerg
2010-06-02 8:42 ` Julia Lawall
2010-06-02 8:42 ` Julia Lawall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BFFF31C.9090904@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=Joerg.Roedel@amd.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=npalix@diku.dk \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.